If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

When you become an experienced constitutional law expert, I'll consider giving your opinion some more weight. Otherwise, I trust the jury, Stephens, Ridgeway and the NC Supreme Court. But thanks for sharing. And Lynne can run along and continue on her mission since it gives her a reason for living. Best of luck.

Trusting the jury and Stephens is irrelevant. The Court of Appeals (who are constitutional law experts) agrees with me. The Supremes don't. Who knows what the SCOTUS would say. But it doesn't change the argument. I can just as well say that since you aren't an experienced constitutional law expert, I'll trust the Court of Appeals over you.

A home invasion in which hardly anything was touched outside of the master bedroom??? No computers, TVs, etc. Don't most criminals that commit home invasions bring a gun or some other threatening weapon?? I guess it's possible someone might wear hush puppies to a home invasion, but seems unlikely. Interesting that the clearest shoe print also happens to be an incredibly cheap shoe. It screams staging.

Why was he going to Brevard(a 4+ hour drive from his meeting) when he had his friends coming to stay at their home in raleigh that night? Why did he ignore LF's calls and voicemails(we know he checked them)? Why did he print an expired eBay item immediately before leaving for hillsville? Seems like an odd time to be anniversary shopping when you have a long drive ahead of you and your anniversary was a month ago. There are just too many things that don't add up. Why did he not let MF and LF see CY for so long?

A home invasion in which hardly anything was touched outside of the master bedroom??? No computers, TVs, etc.

Because most things of value (jewelry) that can be pawned is in the bedroom. Most computers, TV's etc aren't actually that valuable.

Originally Posted by JLD333

Don't most criminals that commit home invasions bring a gun or some other threatening weapon??

I don't believe so.

Originally Posted by JLD333

I guess it's possible someone might wear hush puppies to a home invasion, but seems unlikely. Interesting that the clearest shoe print also happens to be an incredibly cheap shoe. It screams staging.

Do people that wear expensive shoes need to rob places?

Originally Posted by JLD333

Why was he going to Brevard(a 4+ hour drive from his meeting) when he had his friends coming to stay at their home in raleigh that night?

Work takes priority. Didn't really want to be in Raleigh. All kinds of reasons.

Originally Posted by JLD333

Why did he ignore LF's calls and voicemails(we know he checked them)?

People ignore calls and vm's all the time.

Originally Posted by JLD333

Why did he print an expired eBay item immediately before leaving for hillsville? Seems like an odd time to be anniversary shopping when you have a long drive ahead of you and your anniversary was a month ago.

This is really the only thing that seems suspicious. But who knows. JY wasn't the brightest bulb.

Originally Posted by JLD333

Why did he not let MF and LF see CY for so long?

Because he was afraid they would try to keep her (which they did).

For most things, I use Occam's Razor. Remove the assumptions that he committed the murder, and then re-evaluate each activity. And the activities are not unusual in the daily life of people. Even stuff like using the doorstop to keep the hotel door open instead of the key. I do that all the time when I travel. Basically it is a pain when you accidentally lock yourself out of your room. Or your key gets demagnetized. I've also left a day early when traveling to a meeting far away. These are normal things. The only thing that comes across as unusual for me is the ebay printout.

And just to clarify, I don't think that it was proven he didn't do it. But it seems like the police a) assumed he did it; then b) tried to accumulate as much evidence to demonstrate that he could have done it; c) built the case around the only piece of evidence that he did do it (the eyewitness at the gas station). The problem is that the eyewitness was completely unreliable. If that falls away, all you have is that he could have done it. And even that takes quite a stretch of imagination.

Good question, JLD.
Another reason why is because he didn't want them to hear CY say, "Daddy did it," again. They had to get that out of her head before anyone (prosecutor, judge, jury, or any other people) would hear it. She said it twice on the original replay of the 911 call by MF. And yes, when the call was cleaned up and then written, those words and other muffled sounds were removed, apparently for clarity for transcription.

All posts, unless attributed, are "just my humble opinion," and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you.

For most things, I use Occam's Razor. Remove the assumptions that he committed the murder, and then re-evaluate each activity. And the activities are not unusual in the daily life of people. Even stuff like using the doorstop to keep the hotel door open instead of the key. I do that all the time when I travel. Basically it is a pain when you accidentally lock yourself out of your room. Or your key gets demagnetized. I've also left a day early when traveling to a meeting far away. These are normal things. The only thing that comes across as unusual for me is the ebay printout.

So they needed to send someone with CY and LF/MF(I forget which one) as they take her to the bathroom at a supervised visit? He couldn't have honestly thought either of them would commit a crime and run off with CY.

JY going to Brevard had nothing to do with work. Homecoming weekend- not just game day- is HUGE for alumni. Many of his friends would be in town and probably would start tailgating very early on Saturday. From what we know of JY, this decision is extremely out of character. He lived for NCSU home football game weekends.

And I never made an assumption that he did it. At one point, I actually argued with someone that he may not be guilty, but I had not read all the evidence at that time. No other scenario makes sense. His email to his sister referring to how CY will "feel" about finding out about his affairs in quotations really says a lot about the type of person he is. Puts on a good show of being a good father but seems to have no real concern for his child's emotional well-being. This doesn't make him guilty of a crime but, to me, it shows a callousness that makes him capable of it. So that callousness and his nearly pathological lying along with the evidence and lack of any other reasonable explanation that may explain all the strange coincidences and evidence lead me with no doubt that he is guilty.

He definitely deserves a new trial. No physical evidence links him to the crime, he has an excellent alibi, and the notion that he carefully planned this out but left her actual killing to his strangling and bludgeoning her is ridiculous. No chance. The manner in which she was killed suggests an unpremeditated act of passion, not weeks of careful planning.<modsnip>

Last edited by Coldpizza; 10-30-2017 at 07:33 AM.
Reason: She's considered a victim here.

Trusting the jury and Stephens is irrelevant. The Court of Appeals (who are constitutional law experts) agrees with me. The Supremes don't. Who knows what the SCOTUS would say. But it doesn't change the argument. I can just as well say that since you aren't an experienced constitutional law expert, I'll trust the Court of Appeals over you.

Not to mention, if you listen to the jurors' reasoning, it is very clear that some of them found as they found for all of the wrong reasons. Several of them seemed to think he needed to prove his innocence. He should definitely be given a new trial.

A few more things that do not add up: the prosecution claims that Cassidy's being cleaned up proves Jason was the killer (for only he would have taken the time to clean his daughter up). Quite the opposite: her being cleaned up pretty much proves he was not the killer. One, do you mean to tell me that after planning this whole thing out so that he would have an alibi, he decides to clean his daughter up and put socks on her feet (after murdering her mother) so that his very smart and verbal two-year old could tell police she had seen her "daddy" that very morning, that he had put socks on her feet? No chance. Two, far more importantly, if he had killed Michelle when the prosecution says he did (around 3am,) then he would have had no reason to clean Cassidy because Cassidy would have been asleep in bed. Even if she had woken up as a result of the sound of the assault, he wouldn't have allowed her to walk around in her mother's blood and place her hands on her mother's bloodied body. That Cassidy was covered in her mother's wet blood and that someone cleaned her up points to someone other than Jason.

On the night that Michelle was murdered, she told her friend that she thought someone was outside. This was not the first time that she suspected that someone was at the property.

There was a trailer park behind their property and there was some initial interest in that area, but suspicion was on Jason before he returned home. I do agree that the investigation suffered from tunnel vision from the day that the murder was discovered.

Personally, I have always doubted the gas station attendant. She believes something about her brain falling out of her head, which suggests that she has the the intellectual ability of a very young child. She seems to be too easily influenced, and groomed to want to please. Additionally, she was not shown a line-up of suspects, she was shown one photo and was completely incorrect about all other facts about Jason, such as his approximate height.

The conviction seemed to be circular where he was introduced as a slayer during trial where it was to be determined whether he was a slayer - set up as a no-win scenario.

So much water under the bridge, and yet another convicted person who may not actually be guilty. These cases that go from maybe not, to guilty, to maybe not should perhaps all be thrown out as clearly undecided and too complicated to be determined by a court of law.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them.

I would like to reiterate what a terrible miscarriage of justice this case represents. There is little to no actual evidence against Jason Young here, and the supposed "evidence" that does exist is very weak.

One, he was 160 miles away from their home at the time of her murder and there is little to no reason to think otherwise.

Two, the theory that he unplugged the hotel camera isn't even internally consistent and it is far more likely that the camera was unplugged by one of the hotel employees.

Three, not one speck of her blood was found in his car. Not one. If he had committed this brutal and bloody crime then gotten back into his car and drove to Virginia, some fragment of that blood evidence would have been transferred to the car. No question. That there was no blood found there tells us that the man who was driving the car around that night did not carry out the bloody and terrible crime that occurred within that house. No chance.

Four, there were two sets of footprints at the crime scene, yet there are no plausible accomplice accounts for Jason.

Five, if he killed Michelle at 3:00am, as the prosecution alleged, then his daughter would have been asleep in her own bedroom, she would not have come into contact with her mother or with the blood, and she would not have needed to be cleaned or to be given new socks. She'd be sleeping in her bed. If she later awoke and came into contact with the crime scene, her father would no longer be there at that time. So the prosecution timeline doesn't make sense.

Finally, there are better suspects in this case, people who were also close to the daughter and who also would have thought to clean her and give her new socks.